I think it’s easy to get all up in arms about this sort of thing when you are not actually a swimmer and don’t really understand what’s going on. When people are complaining that “the suit makes you a better swimmer”, they fail to realize that just wearing the suit isn’t going to do any good if you’re a terrible swimmer to begin with. Like many have said, fractions of a second make so much of a difference in swimming—any athlete is going to want to have the most drag efficient suit available. The best swimmers will naturally gravitate towards a suit that can minimize their drag, maximize their efficiency.

The Economist claiming that “less-than-notable racers” swimming record times is proof that “difference lies in the apparel, not the athlete” is ridiculous. Just the notion that “less-than-notable racers” are lesser swimmers that “more notable” ones completely disregards that notability is built by the media. Because a swimmer is more “notable” than another doesn’t mean he is a worse swimmer. This is just a terrible conclusion. To become notable, you have to swim fast—To swim fast, you do not have to be notable. Training makes a faster swimmer, and naturally ability, and again, you do not need to be “notable” to have either.

I swam four years of high school and I will be swimming next year in college; I also swim with US Swimming through out the year. At all high level meets, kids are going to be wearing the best suit available. Right now, it’s Fastskins, and FSIIs. Next year, it’ll move towards more LZRs. That is the cycle of things—in all sports. Baseball players use different bats now than fifteen years ago; even runners (arguable the “most natural” sport) wear different shoes than runners even just a few years ago. While it’s easy to get up in arms about how change is ruining sports, think about this: those are are actually competing are more than happy to have these new technologies available.